2025 Rock Integrated Services Survey

Feedback on My Well is overwhelmingly positive, with users praising its seamless integration with Rock RMS, exceptional customer service, and the lowest processing fees available—enabling churches to redirect more funds to ministry efforts. The platform is noted for being stable, ministry-minded, and consistently improving with regular feature releases and responsive support. My Well is also recognized for its knowledgeable staff, ease of migration, and strong documentation. While a few users noted occasional difficulty in getting clear answers or mentioned rising costs over time, the overall experience has been highly favorable, with many expressing gratitude for the value and savings it brings to their organizations.

Feedback on Simple is overwhelmingly positive, with users consistently praising its exceptional customer service, responsive support, and deep commitment to the Rock RMS community. Churches value its seamless integration with Rock, easy setup, user-friendly admin interface, and reliable performance across giving and financial processes. The Simple team is described as going above and beyond, often feeling like an extension of church staff due to their hands-on support and willingness to assist beyond their core responsibilities. While some users mentioned higher fees and a few limitations—such as weekly fund transfers and limited data granularity (e.g., campus designation)—the consensus is that the service quality, proactive communication, and relational approach more than justify the cost. Simple is seen not only as a trusted technical partner but also as a ministry-minded team that actively invests in the success of churches and the Rock ecosystem.

Feedback on Online Giving is generally positive, with users appreciating its efficiency and exceptional customer service—especially their dedication to supporting smaller churches. Many found the platform reliable and were satisfied during their years of use. However, some chose to switch providers due to fees and limitations in integration capabilities. A few also noted challenges during the transition process, particularly around migrating recurring schedules and payment methods, but overall impressions remain favorable.

Feedback on SecureGive is generally positive, with users highlighting its long-standing reliability, excellent customer service, and strong performance in donation processing over many years. While some churches praised its effective integration with Rock RMS, others felt the integration was limited or lacking altogether. Despite a few rough release experiences, the overall consensus is that SecureGive is a trustworthy, user-friendly giving platform supported by a responsive and competent support team.

Feedback on Pushpay presents a complex but consistent narrative: it is widely appreciated for its strong and improving integration with Rock RMS, dependable functionality, and overall reliability in managing giving and financial workflows. Many users describe it as a trustworthy partner with good customer service and a user-friendly platform. However, significant concerns were raised regarding high costs, limited flexibility, incomplete data syncing into Rock, and inconsistent support experiences—particularly during transitions or technical issues. Several churches expressed frustration with features like partial refunds, dual logins, and the need for separate gateways for events and missions due to integration limitations. There is also caution surrounding Pushpay’s ownership of competitive platforms like CCB, which raises questions about long-term alignment with Rock. While some churches continue using Pushpay due to legacy dependencies and donor retention concerns, others are considering alternatives for cost savings and more streamlined integration.

Feedback on Overflow is limited but indicates that it is primarily used for stock and cryptocurrency giving. While detailed commentary is minimal, its specific use case suggests that it serves a niche but valuable role within churches’ broader giving strategies.

Feedback on Kindrid reflects significant dissatisfaction, particularly following its acquisition by Ministry Brands. Users report a decline in service quality, citing a lack of full integration with Rock RMS that forces donors to manage giving through Kindrid’s platform rather than the church's own website. Additionally, concerns were raised about restrictive contract terms, including mandatory three-year agreements and early termination fees. As a result, Kindrid is currently not recommended by respondents.